The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CIiII\t ll PETITI ON No.9903 O F 2025 ORDER: This criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in crime No.489 of 2ozs on the file of p.s. Patancheru, sangareddy District, registered for the offences under sections 318(4) and 319(2) of rhe Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS"), section 20(ii) read with 22 of relangana Medical Practitioners Registration (for short 'TMPR') Act,1g6g and section 34 read with 54 of National Medical commission Act, 2o1g (for short 'NMCA',).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a registered Homeopathy Medical practitioner vide .Registration No.305/H 12017. lt is alleged that the petitioner is practicing Allopathy medicine, though he is qualified in BHMS and that the said act of practicing allopathy medicine attracts the offences under sections 419 and 420 of IPC and section 1s(2) of the lndian Medical Council Act.

3. Heard the submissions of sri r. srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, sri sama sandeep Reddy, tearned standing counsel for TMC for respondent No.2 and sri Jithender . I I I i i I I I i i I ) Crlp-N".9903:;? j Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations faced by the petitioner are that though he is a qualified Doctor in Homeopathy, he is prescribing the medicines under Allopathy. He referred to the order, dated 02.09.2025, of the Co_ ordinate Bench in Criminal petition No.766g of 2O2S and Batch, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for TMC has argued that a person who is qualified in Homeopahty, cannot prescribe the medicines under Allopathy and that it is a clear violation of the regulations and is punishable for the offences under Sections 3ig(4) and 319(2) of BNS, section 20(ii) read with 22 of the TMpR Act and Section 34 read with 54 of the NMCA. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. Since the offences alleged are under Sections 31g(4) and 319(2) of BNS, Section 20(ii) read with 22 of TMpR Act and Section 7 3 ETD,J Crlp.No.9903_2025 34 read with 54 of NMCA, the said Sections of are pertinent to be referred in this context- Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of BNS; "318. Cheating - (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonesfly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or anv part of a valuable security, or anythlng which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

319. Cheating by personation - (1) xxx. (2) Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both." Section 20(ii) and 22 of TMpR Act: "20. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force,- (i) (ii) no person other than a registered practitioner shall, with effect from such date as may be specified by the Government by notification in this behalf, practice the modern scientific medicine or hold himself out, whether direc y or by implication as practicing or as being prepared to so practice; Y \ 4 ETD,J Crlp.No.9903 2025

22. Whoever contravenes the provisions of clause(ii) ..Section 20 shall be punishable on nrst convictii'n wrn tmpnsonment which may extend to three months or with fine. which may extend to five hundred ;p;;; ;r. with.both, and on any subsequent, convictiSn-wiin mpnsonment which may extend to six months or with nne wnrch may extend to one thousand rupees or with both." Sections 34 and 54 of NMCA: "34. Bar .to practice - (1) No person other than a person who is enrolled in the Siate Registrar oi the National Register, as the case may be, shitt _ (a) be allowed to practice medicine as a qualified medical practitioner; (c) be entitled to sign or autirenticate (b) hold office as a physician or surgeon or any other office, by whatever name cail-ed, wnich is meant to be held by a physician or surgeon; ,lai""f o, fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; " - (d) be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under section 45 of the tndian Evidence Aci, 1872 (1 of 1BZ2) on any matter relating to medicine: Provided that the Commission shall submit a list of such medical professionals to the Central Oor"rnr"niln such manner as may be prescribed: Provided further that a foreign citizen who is enrolled in his country as a medical practitioner in ,""or0"n""-riiin ,re ..]3w regulating the registration of medicat practitioners in that country may be p"rrit't"O temporary regiskation in lndia for .rln p.ri&-rnA'ln such manner as may be specified Oy tt e riguf atio;s. (2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of.this section shall be punished *itn irpriio"nr"nGr a term which may extend to one year, orwith fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both. ' 5 ETD,J Crlp.No.9903_2025

54. Cognizance of offences - No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except up_on a complaint in writing made in this behalf by an ofiicer authorized by the Commis"ion- oi'tf,. -State Ethics and Medical Regisiration Board or a Medical Council, as the case may be.',

8. . Thus, under the NMCA and the TMPR Act, no person shall practice the modern medicine unress he is registered under the Act for the said purpose.

9. The petitioner counsel has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the constitution Bench of the Apex court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others Vs. State of punjab and Othersl , wherein it was held in paragraph Nos.47 and 49 that; (47):- A hamonious reading of Section lg of the 1956 Act and Section 17 of the 1g7O Act teads to tii conclusion that there ,.s no scope for a person enrolled on the State Register of lndian Medicine oi the Central Riegiter of tndian l,tedici.ne to practice modern scientific medicin, i iri ii i-ii branches unless that person ,s also enrotted on a State Medical Register within the meaning of the 1956 Act. ^. (!g):: The upshot of the above discussrbn is that Rute 2(ee) (iit) as effected from 14.05.1960 is valid aid does not suffer from the vice of want of tegislative competence and the notifications issued by ihe State ;ivemments thereunder are not ultra virei the said Rule aii are lega!. However, after sub_section (2) in Section 1S of tie 19O6 Act occupied the field vide Central Act 24 of 1964 with effect -16.06.1964, the benefit of the said iule and the notiftcations issued thereunder would be availabte onty in those Sfates where the privilege of suin right to gry9ti9e any system of medicine -is conferred 6y the State Law under which practitioners of tndiai meaicine are registered in (rre Stafq which is for the time being i! fgrce. The position with regard to medical piaiitioners of lndian medicine hotding degies in integrated coirses is on I 11998; 7 Supreme Coun cases 579 6 Til'D,J Crlp.No.9901 2025 .1 \ the same plane inasmuch as if any State Act recognizes their qualification as sutricient for registration in th; State Medical Register, the prohibition contained in Section 15(2)(b) ot the 1956 Act wiil not appty.

10. Therefore, even according to the decision of the Constitution Bench, a person qualified in a stream of medicine i.e., homeopathy cannot prescribe medicines pertaining to another stream unless it is conferred by a State Law which is in force. ln Telangana State, the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act is in force as discussed above. ln simplest of terms, a person who is practicing homeopathy medicine cannot prescribe medicines under Allopathy.

11. ln the present case the petitioner is alleged to have been registered practitioner for Homeopathy, however he has been found to be prescribing allopathy medicines as per the averments in the complaint. Hence, there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress.

12. The contention of the petitioner counser is that the prosecution needs to be launched by the Commissioner of Ayush and that the present case is registered when the complaint is lodged by the Registrar of the Terangana Medicar councir, which is not tenabre in the eye of law and that there is a clear violation of Rule_g(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (Compulsory Rural Medical Service and Compulsory Government Service_Renewal of 7 I.]TD,J Crlp-No.9903_2025 Registration, visiting or inspecting the Hospital or Nursing Home or lnstitution) Rules, 2013 (for short, 'the Rules') issued vide G.O.Ms.No.129, dated 08.08.2013, where the de-facto complainant failed to follow the procedure contemplated in Rule-8(7) of the Rules, which is as under:- "Whenever the Commissioner, AYUSH is in receipt of information from the Council that a Medical Practitioner of Ayurveda Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy and Yoga or Naturopathy is found practicing Modem Medicine or prescribing drugs of Modem Medicine, he shall initiate appropiate action against such practitioner in terms of Government Memo.No.8914tL2r97-1, dated 17.03.1997 appended to fhose rules as annexure-ll. The Commissioner, AYUSH shall initiate appropriate action within thirty days on receipt of such information from the Council and intimate the action taken thereon to the Council."

13. A bare perusal of Rule 8(7) of the Rules discloses that the Ayush Commissioner shall initiate appropriate action against such practitioner in terms of G.O.M.S.No.8914lL2l97-1, dated 17.03.1997 The G.O.Ms.No.8914/12197-1, dated 17.03.1997, is a Circutar Memorandum issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Health, Ivledical and Family Welfare (L) Department which reads as follows:-

1. lt is to inform that the Supreme Court of lndia has given a decision in the case cited above prohibiting the Medical Practitioners from practicing and prescribing drugs in other system of medicine in which they are not registered.

2. lt implies that a Medical Practitioner who is registered under Allopathic system of medicine is prohibited from practicing and prescribing drugs in other systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc., 8 ETD,J Crlp.No.9903 2025 - \"4 \

3. Similarly, the Medicat practitioners in Homeopathy, Ayurueda, and Unani etc., shoutd confine their practiie oity lo lhe systems of medicine in which they are registered and should.not practice and prescribe drugi in any 6ther system of medicine in which they are not regiitered. 4: Thus, the sale of Attopathic drugs to the Medica! Practitioners who are not registered in the Altopathic system of medicine is an offence under the provisioni of Druos ana Cosmetics Act. Similarty, sale of Altopathic arugi to i patient on the prescription of a Medical practitioneV who is not registered in the Allopathic system of medicine rb a/so an.offence under the provisions of Drugs ana Cosmetii Act.

5.. Likewise, drugs betonging to other systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani Homeopathy etc., shoutd not be sold either to the Medical practitioners or to the patients on thi prescriptions of Medical practitioners who are not registered in the respective systems of medicines.

14. Thus it is mentioned in the above said Circular that the person who is practicing homeopathy cannot prescribe medicines in any other system in which they are not registered. lt is pertinent to take note of Rule-8(1 ) to (10) of the Rules in its entirety which is extracted for the sake of reference:- Rule-B(l) The Chairman of the Council may constitute one or more Committees each consisting of two or three members (2) The Committee or Commiftees so constituted sha pertorm the fo owing functions, namely; (a) lnquire suomoto or on a petition presented to the Chairman. (b) Visit or inspect, either by giving a notice or surpisingly, any hospitat or Nursing home or in:titution or places where unethical fractices are alleged to be in vogue. (:! .Vi:jt 9r inseect either any hospitat or nursing home or institution or place where un-quatified perions otr 9 E'TD.J Crlp.No.9903_2025 quacks or doctors who do not belong to Modem System of Scientific Medicine but are practicing modem medicine and are prescibing drugs of modem medicine. (d) Visit or inspect any hospital or nursing home or institution or place where the medical practitioners whose names were removed from the register are alleged to be continuing to practice without surrendeing the ceftificate of registntion without sufficient cause. (3) Whenever information, is received that a Medical Practitioner has been indulged in unethical practices which are unbecoming on the patt of any Medical Practitioner, the Registrar shall make an abstract of such information. (4) Any act of the Medical Practitioner shalt be construed as unethical, when he or she has indulged in any act which is included in chapter 6 of lndian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, etiquette and ethics) Regulations-2002 or any act which in the opinion of the Council is unbecoming on the pafi of a practitioner or modern scientific medicine. (5) Where the information in question relating to practice of Modern Scientific Medicine or prescribing drugs of modern medicine by a qualified practitioner of other systems of medicine, such as Ayurvedic, Homeopathy, Unani, Naturopathy or Sidda, the Registrar shall make an abstract of such information. (6) The abstract and where a complaint has been lodged, the complaint and all other documents beaing on the case shall be submifted by the Registrar to the Chairman, who may if thinks fit, instruct the Registrar to fumish the institution concemed with a copy of the complaint and other documents and invite the head of such institution by means of a registered letter to submit any explanation he may have to offer within a period of ten clear working days. (7) Whenever the Commissioner, AYUSH is in receipt of information from the Council that a Medical Practitioner of Ayurueda, Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy and Yoga or naturopathy is found practicing Modern Medicine or prescibing drugs of Modem Medicine, he shall initiate appropriate action against such pnctitioner in terms of Govemment Memo.No.8914/L2n7-1, dated 17.03.1997 appended fo lrose rules as annexure-ll. The Commissioner, AYUSH shall initiate appropiate action within thitty days on receipt of such information 10 ETD,J Crlp.No.9903_2025 from the Council and intimate the action taken thereon to the Council. (8) Whenever any information is received or evidence is brought before any Committee constituted by the Council under caluse (iv) of Secfion 20 of the Act that drugs of Modern Medicine are dispensed by Druggists or Chemists on the prescription of practitioners of other sysfems of medicine, the Council on receipt of such report from the Committee shall communicate he same to the Drug lnspector or Assrstanf Director of Drug Control Administration with a request to take appropriate action on the Druggist or Chemist concerned as per the provisions of Drugs and Cosmefics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder. lf the council come to the conclusion that no action has been initiated by the Drugs lnspector or the Assistanf Director, Drug Control Administration within a period of thirty days, the Chairman of the Council may instruct the Registrar to furnish the details to Director General, Drugs Control Administration with a copy of information received in this respect or copy of complaint and other documents and request him to rssue necessary instructions to the Drug lnspector or Assr'stanf Director concerned. (9) Where, in any clinic or hospital or nursing home or other institution or place where un-qualified persons or quacks are found practicing modern system or Scientific Medicine or prescribing drugs of modern medicine, criminal proceedings will be initiated by making a complaint to the Station House Officer concerned as per Section 22 of the Act. (10) Where it is found that the Stafrbn House Officer has not acted upon the complaint-petition of the Council, the Chairman, APMC who may thinks fit; instruct the Registrar to furnish the information together with other documents on record to the Superintendent of Police of the District Concerned or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer with a request to instruct the Station House Officer to initiate appropriate action in accordance with the Law.

15. A conjoint perusal of Rule-8(9) and (10) of the Rules would reveal that the Registrar is authorized to lodge a complaint as per Section 22 of the TMPR Act. Therefore, in the present case, the \ 1l ETD,J Crlp.No.9903_2025 complaint is lodged by the Registrar of Telangana Medical Council, which is very much inconsonance with Sub-Rules 9 and 10 of Rule-8 of the Rules.

16. But, under Section 54 of NMCA, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint in writing by an officer authorized by the Commission or the Ethics and Medical Registration Board or a State Medical Council. Thus, it has to be a complaint made in writing and the word 'complaint' is defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: "2. Definitions - (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report."

17. Therefore, a complaint in writing has to be lodged before the competent Court by the authorized officer and it does not include a police officer. !n the present case, the complaint is filed before the Station House Officer by the Registrar of the State Medical Council. Under Section 54 of the NMCA, an officer authorized by the State Medical council can file the complaint. Thus, there is nothing wrong if the Registrar files the complaint, but the said complaint has to be \ ! I l ,i t2 {; ETD,J Crlp.No.9903_2025 made to the concerned Court and not before the Station House Officer. Therefore, there is a lapse in the procedure adopted by the concerned authority and the said lapse would affect the case in such a way that cognizance of the offence cannot be taken by the Court.

18. As discussed supra, Sub-Rules 8, 9 and 10 of Rule g of the Rules empowers the Registrar to initiate the criminal proceedings by making a complaint to the Station House Officer and when the Station House Officer does not act upon the same, he shall furnish the information along with other documents to the Superintendent of Police to instruct the Station House Officer to initiate appropriate action. As per Section 54 of the NMCA, an authorized person under the Commission or the Ethics and Medical Registration Board or the State Medical Council can initiate the proceedings. Thus, the Registrar is competent to initiate the proceedings i.e., he can file a complaint, but it has to be made in writing before the concerned Court.

19. ln the present case, the Registrar has filed the complaint before the Station House Officer. Hence, no Court can take cognizance of the said complaint. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in the present case against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. ,/ l3 El'D,J Crlp.No.9903 2025

20. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.489 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Patancheru, Sangareddy District, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein. However, it is made clear that the authorized officer is at liberty to initiate criminal proceedings strictly in accordance with law i.e., in accordance with Section 54 of the NMCA.

21. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII s DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judiciar First clas-s Magistrate (Excise and prohibition) at sangareddy. 2 The station House officer, Fatancheru pJiceiiation, s"n'g"rudd;Di"trkit. 3. Two CCs to the pubtic prosecutor, State oii"f"ng"n", Hig-h C;; fiiil;;;r, 4. One CC to Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, Standing Counsel for TMC [OpUCl (vi vvr 5. One CC to Sri T Sruian Kumar Reddy, Aaro""E tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad (OUT) DUPSL HIGH COURT DATED:2911O12025 o c R RLP.No.9903 ol 2O25 HF- Sl4r {. /k. BE[, C).\ t I [.:r,,. r- CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF 4